logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원제천지원 2016.06.08 2015가단21154
토지인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on December 30, 1993, and the Plaintiff received the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said land from C on August 7, 2001 by November 15, 1999.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff, which is the cause of the claim, is the owner of the instant part of the land. Since the Defendant packages the asphalt and occupies the said part of the said land without any title, the Defendant is obligated to remove the said asphalt and deliver the said part of the said land to the Plaintiff.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether the Defendant occupied the land portion of the instant case (B).

For example, the actual controlling body of the road can not be said to be the state or local government in the case of the construction of the road, the person other than the state or local government, or the person who actually constructs, maintaining, or repairing the existing road due to self-helping projects.

However, even if a road is constructed in the form of a resident self-help project, if the State or a local government bears a substantial portion of the construction cost and recognizes special circumstances such as where the road is being directly in charge of the maintenance and repair of the road after the completion of the construction and is in common use for the traffic of the public, it can be said that

However, it cannot be readily concluded that the state or a local government occupies the road solely on the ground that the state or the local government supported the packing construction, etc. of old roads at the request of residents.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da235899 Decided July 9, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu25267 Decided June 26, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 96Da25265 Decided November 22, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da19259 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.).

arrow